The one thing you need to know to pass a polygraph test - Business Insider - Business Insider
The one thing you need to know to pass a polygraph test - Business Insider - Business Insider |
| The one thing you need to know to pass a polygraph test - Business Insider - Business Insider Posted: 03 Jun 2015 12:00 AM PDT "The public needs to know that polygraph testing has no scientific basis and is inherently biased against truthful people, yet liars can train themselves to pass," said George Maschke, the co-creator of Antipolygraph.org. Maschke, whose website aims to expose the test's shortcomings, told Business Insider that just one insight could have a huge impact on a person's results: Examiners expect takers to lie on certain questions, known as control or comparison questions. These "control questions" include harmless accusations that most people wouldn't admit to, such as "Have you ever lied to get out of trouble?" or "Have you ever taken supplies from work?" According to Maschke, if people think about certain things when answering these control questions, the test becomes easier to pass. Polygraphs work by monitoring three physical reactions: sweat, using electrodes attached to the fingers; heart rate and blood pressure through an arm cuff; and breathing through chest straps. Any changes in those factors cause needles making lines on a paper to rise and fall. Examiners then analyze these patterns to determine the probability someone is telling the truth or lying. But the name "lie detector" is a "term of convenience, not science," Raymond Nelson, president of the American Polygraph Association, a trade group representing polygraph examiners, told Business Insider. That's because polygraphs don't actually measure lies, Nelson writes in a commentary called "The Scientific Basis for Polygraph Testing," published in the polygraph association's journal Polygraph. Instead, Nelson writes, polygraphs measure the differences between how truthful people react to relevant questions and control questions and how deceptive people react to those questions. And there's a complicated process for analyzing the results, Nelson said. Examiners compare a person's answers to relevant questions with the control questions they're expected to lie about. It's a similar idea to testing students at the beginning of the school year and the end to measure their progress, Nelson said. Based on these comparisons, examiners then use statistical analysis to determine the probability that the test taker is lying. While polygraphs are most often used in criminal investigations, certain government agencies can require one as part of the application process. For example, if somebody is interviewing for a position related to national security, such as with the FBI or CIA, the examiner might ask if anyone instructed the taker to seek employment there, Maschke said. Maschke would know about the FBI's protocol for polygraph tests; he says he wrongly failed an FBI polygraph in 1995 when he applied to be a translator. While the FBI told Business Insider we would have to file a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain Maschke's records, his website refers to an FBI HQ file released to him in 2001. An intense question about spying, however, could cause even a truthful person to react badly. "Any time I present a stimulus, I'm always going to get a response," Nelson said. "So how do we measure a response to a neutral question — like 'Is it Tuesday?' — compared to a relevant question — like 'Did you do the bad thing?' whatever the bad thing is." To attempt to figure out whether somebody is lying, the examiner would compare the taker's reaction to a relevant question with the reaction to the control question. Overly simplified, if the taker reacts more to the control question than to the relevant question, the person is probably telling the truth.
"They might preface the question with an explanation that the sort of person who would lie to get out of trouble is the sort of person who might commit espionage," Maschke said. "They want the person to make a blanket denial." Some people, however, answer control questions honestly and might not show a strong reaction. That's why Maschke accuses polygraph tests of actually punishing the truthful. "The more admissions you make [during the control] and the more relaxed and comfortable you feel, then perversely the more likely you are to fail," he said. "To protect yourself against a false positive outcome ... you want to augment your response to that control question." The American Polygraph Association, however, notes that examiners will offer the taker an opportunity to explain unusual reactions when appropriate. Most jurisdictions, including the government, have also forgone the use of probable-lie comparison, Nelson said, and now rely on "directed lie comparison," which doesn't require any manipulation when asking control questions. "It's less scientifically, ethically, legally, and socially complicated," Nelson said. Still, Maschke suggests using upsetting mental imagery — like being mugged at gunpoint or having to solve a difficult math problem quickly when answering control questions. "Think of something really scary ... anything that will make your heart beat a little faster," Maschke said. While polygraphs include sensors and statistical algorithms to weed out the fakers, "there's no test in the world that doesn't have some vulnerability to faking," Nelson acknowledged. In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences published one of the most comprehensive studies of polygraph accuracy, concluding that while the tests could "differentiate lying from telling the truth at rates well above chance," they weren't accurate enough for security purposes. "That's still better than any other technology available today," Nelson told NPR. The association puts the test's accuracy above 80%. Regardless of the questions surrounding its accuracy, polygraph testing remains legal at federal and state levels. The Employee Polygraph Protection Act, however, does prohibit most private employers from using them during interview processes or employment. "I'm actually not at all interested in helping people pass polygraphs who are not qualified for government jobs or helping criminals evade justice," Maschke said. "People just need to protect themselves against the false positives."  |
| Putin's Man in Ukraine Pushes Unproven Russian COVID-19 Vaccine - Polygraph.info Posted: 30 Oct 2020 11:53 AM PDT  On October 21, the Ukrainian Ministry of Health announced that there would be no negotiations with Russia to purchase the Sputnik V coronavirus vaccine. Sputnik V is currently in its Phase III (final) trials, despite Putin, in an August announcement, declaring the vaccine had completed required testing. "The state registration of a medicinal product is carried out exclusively on the basis of an application and the results of the examination of registration materials conducted by the State Expert Center of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine," the Ukrainian ministry's statement read. "So far, no applications have been received from any entities regarding the state registration of the Russian Gam-KOVID-Vak vaccine in the prescribed manner. In addition, according to the available information, this product also did not pass the examination and registration with the competent authorities of the USA, Switzerland, Japan, Australia, Canada or the EU, which in fact makes it impossible to purchase and use it in Ukraine." The statement concludes by stating that Ukraine is set to receive a COVID-19 vaccine via the COVAX mechanism, an international initiative launched by the World Health Organization, the European Commission, and the government of France to ensure efficient access to COVID-19 vaccines once they are ready. It added that Ukraine is set to receive vaccines from AstraZeneca (U.K.) and Novavax (U.S.) "free of charge or at below-market prices." Nonetheless, on October 26, Viktor Medvedchuk, chairman of the Moscow-leaning Opposition Platform-For Life party and a personal friend of Russian President Vladimir Putin, criticized the Ukrainian government's refusal to purchase Russia's Sputnik V vaccine. Medvedchuk accused authorities of "reinventing the wheel." "Why should our people participate in the experiments of some foreign uncles, if there are those who have already conducted two phases of testing, have confirmed the possibility of using the vaccine and are ready to provide it," Medvedchuk wrote on his personal Facebook page. This is false. First, Medvedchuk's framing is misleading. While referring to Western vaccine providers as "foreign uncles" trying to "experiment" on Ukraine, he is recommending that Ukraine buy a vaccine that hasn't completed testing from Russia, another foreign country. In August, Putin announced the official registration in Russia of the Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine, developed by Russia's Gamaleya Research Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology. Putin claimed the vaccine had passed all required testing and even said one of his daughters (he did not specify which) had already received the vaccine. Polygraph.info found these claims to be misleading. At the time of Putin's announcement, Sputnik V's Phase III trials had not even begun (they started a day later, on August 12), and even Russian medical professionals expressed concern that the new vaccine had been tested on an insufficient number of patients. One of the harshest reactions to Putin's announcement came from Svetlana Zavidova, head of the Russian Association of Clinical Research Organizations, who called the Putin statement "ridiculous" and sent a letter of protest to the Russian Ministry of Health urging a delay in registering Sputnik V until all clinical trials are complete. Another concern among international experts was the lack of transparency regarding results of the vaccine's initial testing phases. More than two months later, not much more is known about the vaccine's efficacy, and there has been new cause for doubts. On October 27, CNN reported that only 6,000 of the 17,000 people in Sputnik V's Phase III trial had received the full vaccine. The same article quotes a virologist who said it's impossible to tell if Sputnik V is able to make a person immune to the virus, which is officially named SARS-CoV-2. In terms of the number of patients enrolled in clinical testing, Sputnik V appears to be as much as two to three months behind U.S. manufacturers such as Moderna and Pfizer. Another cause for concern is that the vaccine may not be fully effective. On October 28, the Russian news outlet RBK reported that some participants in the Sputnik V Phase III trials reportedly contracted COVID-19 (the disease caused by the coronavirus). However, it is possible those patients had received the placebo and not the vaccine. Finally, the CNN report said Russia's capacity to produce adequate amounts of the vaccine may be lacking to fulfill the domestic and international orders its promoters have been touting. Prior to Putin's announcement of the vaccine's registration, Kirill Dmitriev, head of Russia's Direct Investment Fund, claimed that Russia would produce 30 million doses of the vaccine by the end of 2020, CNN reported. But even if Russia speeds up its current production, it's unlikely to be achieve enough vaccine for 30 million people. Considering that Russia has a population of 146 million, it is unclear how or if Russia might fulfill the large foreign orders it has reportedly received from countries such as Mexico, Brazil, and India.  |
Aside from expecting a less than truthful answer, examiners sometimes also steer the taker into lying — a technique called the "probable-lie comparison."| You are subscribed to email updates from "how to pass a polygraph" - Google News. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
Comments
Post a Comment